Ads


Middle Men: Not Starring Steve Jobs

“You know, there’s a porn store for Android . . . . You can download nothing but porn. . . . Your kids can download porn. That’s a place we don’t want to go, so we’re not going to go there.”


Those are the now famous words of Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, who recently made known his belief that his company has a “moral responsibility” to keep porn applications (or apps) off its newest technologies: the iPhone and the iPad. When asked about what this means for freedom, Jobs said this is freedom: “freedom from porn.”

When later confronted by Ryan Tate from Gawker.com in an email, Jobs exclaimed, “Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin’, and some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away.”

But, not long after he uttered those words, pornographers found a way into the iPhone. Not through apps, because Jobs has stood firm, but through a major feature of the new iPhone 4: a videoconference feature called FaceTime. In several cities, Craigslist ads have appeared seeking models to have video sex chats using FaceTime. “It has a very personal feel—your mobile phone to hers, ”said one porn-production spokesman, who will be charging by credit card close to $6 per minute for people to speak with his models.

As the Associated Press reported it, “It’s a maxim of technology: Invent the newest gadget and the porn industry will find a way to cash in.” It’s “the newest frontier of porn technology,” writes Dan Amira on New York magazine’s website:

And there’s nothing Apple can do about it, since they have no way of controlling how you use FaceTime. Steve Jobs may be a powerful man, but preventing the porn industry from co-opting a new form of technology is like trying to keep bloodthirsty zombies out of your house. You can board up the windows and bar the doors, but eventually they’ll find a way in anyway.

That’s a yucky metaphor, but it’s probably a true one. The film Middle Men, which opens today in theaters, tells a story of how pornographers exploited another technological innovation—online credit-card billing—to cash in. They’re the middle men of the porn industry, the ones whose technology for online credit-card billing made porn sales skyrocket with quick, easy, and anonymous transactions—or as the slogan on the poster calls them, “the men who brought XXX to the www.”

The story is inspired by the real-life experiences of Christopher Mallick, the former head of an Internet-billing company called Paycom that serviced porn sales. As Mallick told me in a phone interview, “about 80 percent is true, and we let the audience figure out the 20 percent that isn’t.”

As the story starts, the involvement of the middle men seems morally neutral—separate from the seedy business of pornography. As a character asks Jack Harris (Mallick’s character, played by Luke Wilson): If hotels like Hilton make money from renting out porn, “does that make them pornographers?”

But this façade doesn’t hold up for long: Soon Harris and the business are mixed up with gangs, drugs, theft, blackmail, kidnapping, and murder. Harris’ family life goes to the dumps—he ends up cheating on his wife and nearly abandoning his kids. It’s a storyline that perfectly captures what St. Paul meant when he wrote, “bad company corrupts good morals.”

Is this surprising? Pornography is Big Easy Money, and when there’s so much easy money being made so quickly, there’s fertile ground for greed and corruption. Mallick told me, “It was an insane business. It was draining physically, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually.” He added, “It’s a better movie than a business.”

Another unexpected mess that came with this business, as Mallick found out, is child pornography, which he admitted was “tough, early on, to control.” But this shouldn’t surprise anyone, right? Pornography was never a clean business, and no one ever thought it would bring about good things. But somehow it surprises us when it brings about bad things, like child porn.

Everyone agrees that child porn is wrong (well, everyone I suppose except maybe Peter Singer, depending on how old and sentient the child is and how much pleasure it brings the adult), and generally everyone agrees that children should not see adult porn. Both are illegal in this country, and both are forms of child abuse. But with porn as prevalent on the Internet as it is today, it’s nearly impossible to support pornography without supporting both child pornography and child exposure to pornography.

In 2007 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported that twenty percent of Internet porn is child porn. A 2005 study by Family Safe Media revealed that the “average age of first Internet exposure to pornography” was eleven years old, the largest group of viewers of Internet porn was children between ages twelve and seventeen, and that ninety percent of children polled between the ages of eight and sixteen have viewed porn, mostly while doing homework on the Internet.

Because Mallick saw this seedier side of the industry, he became a founding sponsor of the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection in the efforts to combat it. But the Pandora’s box of Internet porn has been opened, and it’s much harder to stop child porn now that independent sources all over the web provide it—a situation for which the middle men are partly responsible.

So can we blame Steve Jobs for not wanting to be a middle man? Of course he can’t stop people from using the iPhone feature of FaceTime to create live porn if they want to. But FaceTime is a feature designed for multiple purposes, while the porn apps are designed for one. People who equate these aren’t making a serious point; they’re snarking about the futility of keeping technology clean—probably in the efforts to demoralize anyone who wants to. That’s a cheap tactic—like saying it’s not worth reporting child pornography because we’ll never be able to eradicate it completely. Of course it’s still worth the effort.

After seeing all the trouble the Internet porn industry brought Mallick, and all the trouble it brought the world, one can’t help but wonder: Would he do it all again? It makes a dramatic movie, but was it worth it?

We might get an answer from Mallick’s next project: a film documentary due out in October called Life After Porn, about the experiences of people who once worked with the porn industry but, like him, decided to leave.

After watching Mallick’s story in Middle Men, we get a glimpse of why Steve Jobs would rather not be one.

Mary Rose Somarriba is the managing editor of First Things.

RESOURCES

Mary Eberstadt’s “The Weight of Smut
Jason Byassee’s “Not Your Father’s Pornography
Frederica Mathewes-Green’s “Internet Child Pornography
The Witherspoon Institute’s Social Costs of Pornography Research Project
Family Safe Media’s
Pornography Statistics
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s
Child Pornography Fact Sheet

Comments:

8.6.2010 | 7:11am
In ancient Greek culture, statues of both women and men were often naked; but the Greeks, young and old, simply learned to deal with that. As simply, a fact of life.

Give the kids just a little counseling .. and probably they can learn to deal with it.

For an extended discussion suggesting that porn is not so bad, even from a biblical perspective, see the extended comments, on the "Weight of Smut" article in First Things.
8.6.2010 | 9:08am
Bibbit says:
I have been in the tech industry for over 25 years, and it disgusts me when I read tech blogs lamenting the lack of porn for the i products. I often have a simple reply, get something else if that's what you want. I think Mr. Jobs should be applauded here, and I thinks it's a shame I don't see more Christian sites doing just that. By the way, I don't have an iPhone, I do have an Android based phone, and I do wish Google followed Apples lead here.
8.6.2010 | 10:23am
Steve says:
brettongarcia:

Did you actually read "The Weight of Smut"? It doesn't discuss how "porn is not so bad." I'm flipping through the article as I write, and I see nothing indicating how porn isn't bad.

And comparing pornography to Greek art is a ridiculous apples/oranges comparison. One celebrates the human form and seeks aesthetic value. Porn is titillation, and seeks nothing but satiating one's lust.
8.6.2010 | 10:52am
JDD says:
BG,

"...but the Greeks, young and old, simply learned to deal with that. As simply, a fact of life."


Which says nothing about the health of that culture. There were a number of other practices that took place in ancient Greek culture as well. Do you really want to claim that as your defense?


But the greatest disconnect in your post is equating nudity with porn.
8.6.2010 | 11:07am
Eric says:
Brettongarcia,

You're comments on this site are a broken record of "...absurdity ...absurdity... absurdity... absurdity... absurdity... absurdity..."
8.6.2010 | 11:58am
John2 says:
Eric,

Yes, and you can see that Brettongarcia carries a heavy load of pathology through thread after thread after thread...


A prayer is in order, as is administrative action. Isn't it time, administrators???
8.6.2010 | 1:45pm
I think First Things should police the comments on its discussion board. Comments such as those by Brettongarcia should not be allowed on this site. All major publications screen the comments posted on their sites. First Things should do the same!
8.6.2010 | 1:50pm
First Things. Take brettongarcia's comments off your site. It is disheartening to see his comments, which continue to advance a culture of death.

"For an extended discussion suggesting that porn is not so bad..."? Need I say more.

Plus, fire your moderator while you are at it.
8.6.2010 | 2:52pm
Ironically, 6 of the 8 comments here are in response to Brettongarcia. First Things would do a disservice to readers if it only ran comments that supported the views of its authors and readers. Meanwhile, an excellent and thought-provoking piece by Ms. Somarriba.
8.6.2010 | 3:04pm
Natalie says:
Sadly, I imagine that the average age of exposure to internet pornography is far younger than 11 today. Prayers are indeed in order - for all children who suffer in one way or another from the evil of pornography, for families that suffer, for parents trying to protect their children, for the addicted, for our culture and for those entangled in this business of slavery and degradation.

Steve Jobs is a hero for taking a stand in this very real battle for the bodies and souls of men. If I may, I'd like to give a shout out to all E5 Men - a fabulous group of men who - through the aid of the internet - participate in a monthly bread and water-only fast for the healing for all women and an increase in respect for the dignity of women. Now that's manly!

Amira's quote about bloodthirsty zombies is disturbingly apt! Thank you for such a thoughtful and well-written article, Mrs. Somarriba. Keep us posted on Mallick's upcoming Life After Porn documentary! Hopefully his efforts will effect some healing in our society. May God shower mercy and grace on those in need of healing from the devastation of pornography.
8.6.2010 | 6:35pm
Patrick T says:
The iPhone has always been able to access porn, via its Safari mobile browser. After all, the browser can connect an iPhone to any site on the World Wide Web. This, along with the threat of “sexting”, is an important consideration when giving your child a wireless phone.

Nevertheless, one must congratulate Steve Jobs for his stand opposing specialized pornographic apps for the iPhone.

On a side note, brettongarcia’s attempt at a dry, intellectual argument in favor of porn is thin cover for his true motivations, which originate, I suspect, from a decidedly anti-intellectual source located below the beltline. His comments reveal the kind of warped rationalizations some will use to justify the cultural and societal poison that is pornography.

Nevertheless, as long as he remains polite and civil, brettongarcia’s comments should be allowed to remain on the site as a reminder that we are obliged to challenge Satan’s arguments – and to pray for those poor souls he uses to spread them.
8.6.2010 | 6:41pm
Richard says:
Rogue in Rouge,

I agree. It seems to me that First Things is committed to the premise that Christianity is rational, and that as such it can stand up to rational inquiry. The present Pope is an outstanding advocate of this position (see especially his book "Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions"--dazzling). Besides, some of the best posters on this forum are dissidents.

That said, in my view it is an imposition on other contributors to turn posts into harangues or crusades as a regular practice. When every other post on a long thread is a lengthy (and often repetitious) polemic from the same poster, and this happens again and again, probably a line has been crossed that should not be. IMHO this forum is a place for statements of principle, commentary, an exchange of views, and yes, debate when that is appropriate. But to see an insistent point of view dominate threads with any frequency fatigues me, and my ability to endure it is limited.

If we are self regulating, the moderators will not have to intervene. I would bet my last dime that they really don't want to reject posts or ban posters.

Best,

Richard
8.6.2010 | 7:24pm
JB in CA says:
John2 and Jackfruit: Why remove the comments of someone whose posts on this topic are little more than a reductio ad absurdum of the position he's trying to defend? We should just thank him for saving us the trouble of having to refute his arguments and move on.
8.6.2010 | 11:43pm
This reminds me of this observant quote from Jacques Barzun:

The sexual reality [after the sexual revolution] was often halfhearted and
disappointing, much obsession but little passion--what D. H. Lawrence had
called "sex in the head." Men and women did not benefit from the boasted
"revolution" as they had expected; it did give some people the free play
they wanted, but it pushed many more into courses unsuited to their nature
and capacities. It did not install the Mohammedan paradise on earth,
although everything in sight suggested that it had. Pornography is a form
of utopian literature and, like the advertising of Desire, it set a
standard that brought on paralysis. When an erectifying drug was put on
the market, the millions who rushed to obtain it numbered the healthy
young as well as the ailing old, and women at once demanded its feminine
equivalent. It was apparently not known that desire must be dammed up to
be self-renewing.
-- Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence, 2000
8.7.2010 | 10:37am
About the Ancient Greeks... certainly creative, but not the picture of sexual equality or sexual health. The inequality between men and women in that culture was probably STRENGTHENED by wives not being the primary love objects of the men. Sex in committed relationships is bonding, and not exploitative.

As for counseling and kids. . . moohoohahaha! Actually, the only people that don't respond to nudity in a strong gut-manner are... not the enlightened, but psychopaths! See Hare's book _The Psychopath_.

I just got done wiith a week on our adolescent psych unit, when I made the comment, "I'm tired of all the sexual repression-- these kids are dealing with neuroticism from their sexual repression", the entire audience (left, right, and center ideologies) burst-out laughing. We, who deal with the reality of what happens when kids don't funtion well, know that there is nothing about "repression" in the sexually-related pathologies of the young, and it is all about inadequate SUPPRESSION, over-exposure, and a fashion industry that makes our 13-15 year-old's constantly, pulling up the tops of their shirts and jeans, because they are worried about how much the clothes our culture is telling them to buy are showing of their bodies.
8.7.2010 | 11:14am
Lina says:
I wonder if those who are applauding Steve Jobs blatant attempt to restrict our personal choices would still applaud if someone else decides that blocking websites selling guns is "freedom from violence". I wonder what the argument will be then.... hmmmm I bet the will quickly invoke the 2nd ammendment.
8.7.2010 | 3:50pm
John2 says:
JB, Richard, and Patrick T,

I don’t know whether FT administrators ban anybody, but a bit of counseling is clearly in order. To give them their due, they may have started on the process with Brettongarcia; he has gone quiet on this thread.

My comment on Brettongarcia stems from experience over 10-20 (I did not keep count) FT threads. He loads a thread with oddball thoughts he apparently does not understand, repeating a point after it has been refuted, leaving (in me) the impression of mental disorder. But he claims to be the Ph. D.- bearing, 60+ year old author of a 700-page book. I flatly disbelieve that a mature, practicing Catholic composed either the manuscript or his comments.

But enough of this, I don’t like to criticize a soul in such need. I have prayed for him, and I will do so again.
8.7.2010 | 4:14pm
michael says:
brettongarcia- all was not well in much of Greek culture. Women and pubescent boys were considered fair game for sexual exploitation- especially if they were from a lower class. The word pedagoge (ie to lead children) was not coined to praise child educators- but actually was the title given to a trusted slave who walked your son to his place of education AND one of his main roles was to protected the young man from being sexually molested. No upper class Greek women was ever seen naked- in fact they were almost never seen in public- their slaves went to the market for them. Women in the public were considered whores or slaves.
8.7.2010 | 6:42pm
Jim says:
Natalie: Thanks for making me aware of E5 Men... I joined tonight!
8.8.2010 | 12:59am
Pornographic literature and movies do not incite us to strenuous emulation. On
the contrary, they are substitutes, evidence not of the strength of our sexual
feelings, but of their enfeeblement.
-- Henry Fairlie, The Seven Deadly Sins Today, 1978

How do I know pornography depraves and corrupts? It depraves and corrupts me.
-- Malcolm Muggerridge
8.8.2010 | 5:20am
Wright says:
John 2:

What's wrong with you? I've always found Brettongarcia perfectly and supremely rational and coherent.

Simply cutting off your opponents, censoring them, or characterizing them as "insane," has always been the cheapest way to win an argument.
8.8.2010 | 8:33am
Dr. Wright says:
Sanity Inspector (a pseudonymic parody of John 2's unclinical remarks?):


Barzun isn't the last word in sanity. Particularly, consider his odd championing of "Desire." Which seems oddly perverse. As follows.

Consider: to be sure, when we satisfy a "desire," Desire itself disappears. For example, we had a "desire" to eat; then we have a satisfying meal, and it then disappears. Granted therefore, to be sure, our Desire has disappeared. But by being satisfied. By having a lack, a need, met. Is this disappearance of Desire therefore, a bad thing?

Here's what I'd say to Barzun if he was still around (and active? In San Antonio?). What's so great about "Desire" anyway? It is really just an unsatisfied need. It denotes not a good, but a lack; an insufficiency.

Here's my main point: why hang on to "desires" per se? That would be to say, embrace disease, because it accentuates our "desire" for health. Or encourage the world to be starving; because it would accentuate the desire for food.

To champion "Desire" is an odd perversity therefore.

In fact, it's a little crazy.

So are you sure that you and Barzun both passed the sanity inspection yourselves?

By the way John2: what exactly are your formal credentials, to be pontificating, condescendingly, on the sanity of others? Where is your PhD from? What is your real name? What is your exact professional credential in Psychiatry? From where, exactly? Where and when did you do your residency in Psychiatry?

Suppose we turn the tables on you: prove your own authority. Prove your own sanity.
8.8.2010 | 3:58pm
John2 says:
Dear Dr. Wright,
Thanks! I enjoyed your imitation of brettongarcia's method of disputation. BTW, he is still quiet unless he is in disguise, perhaps as Doc W.

Quickly since you asked, I wrote Ph. D. prelim examinations in Psych at a flagship state university. As for sanity, let the record on FT serve as evidence. I am a faithful orthodox Catholic, sort of ’Apostle of Common Sense’ doing a pale imitation of Chesterton.

To conclude, bg and the Wright family, I thank you for an amusing discussion. Doublethanks if you are one and the same.
10.7.2010 | 9:53am
Did you actually read "The Weight of Smut"? It doesn't discuss how "porn is not so bad." I'm flipping through the article as I write, and I see nothing indicating how porn isn't bad. For an extended discussion suggesting that porn is not so bad, even from a biblical perspective, see the extended comments, on the "Weight of Smut" article in First Things.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact